Not all companies have the simplest RMA process... I think it just isn't worth dealing with the hassle for a lot of people when you're dealing with relatively cheap parts. I'll RMA stuff when I know it's going to be a simple process, but if I'm going to have to waste a ton of time going back and forth to get an RMA approved for something I can replace for $40, it just isn't worth it.
That said, as far as I can remember, I've never had the need to RMA anything from either PacketFlux or MTC... but if I do, I'll certainly send it back. On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Josh Luthman <[email protected]> wrote: > I always assumed people were over zealous in RMAs *shrug* > > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340> > Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343> > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Mike Hammett <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Customers. >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> >> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> >> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> >> >> >> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> >> ------------------------------ >> *From: *"Chuck McCown" <[email protected]> >> *To: *[email protected] >> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 4, 2017 8:48:20 AM >> >> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board >> revisions? >> >> Customers or Vendors? >> We have almost zero returns. We do give an RMA number to the customer >> for logging purposes, but if they don’t put the number on the box it is no >> big deal because we are expecting it. I see maybe one return per quarter. >> >> *From:* Mike Hammett >> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 04, 2017 6:25 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board >> revisions? >> >> I'll never understand why people are resistant to doing RMAs. >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> >> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> >> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> >> >> >> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> >> ------------------------------ >> *From: *"Forrest Christian (List Account)" <[email protected]> >> *To: *"af" <[email protected]> >> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 4, 2017 1:37:53 AM >> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board >> revisions? >> >> We've never done a RMA on one to my knowledge, at least in recent >> history. Or if we have, it's been so few that I haven't become aware of >> it. I'd have to look though the pile of RMAed hardware to be sure. I >> vaguely remember some sort of software or manufacturability issue on the >> first few that went out..there may have been some swapped way back then, >> but that was so long ago I don't remember what it was. >> >> I'd really be surprised if there was a general systemic issue with >> these. The hardware are in all ways that matter identical to a >> powerinjector plus sync which we've been shipping for years in various >> forms. Just remove the rj45's and the sync inputs, and add one more >> port. Of course, I am prepared to be surprised. >> >> Just to repeat what I've said in the past, I really need to see the >> failures which do occur in order to be able to fix problems. Every product >> which we've shipped which is similar enough to a currently shipping product >> is eligible for RMA at no cost. In some cases this means that even >> products which are years old are still convered. About the only exclusions >> are water damage and earlier revisions of products which have enough design >> changes that failures are no longer interesting. It certainly doesn't hurt >> to send a request in. >> >> On Jul 3, 2017 7:45 AM, "Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Oops...nevermind. Looks like they are still on there. They were great >>> for powering Chuck's GIGE-POE-APC injectors, if only they were more >>> reliable. Perhaps he has worked out the bugs by now, as ours were >>> purchased years ago when the product was first released. >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Adam Moffett <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> http://store.packetflux.com/sitemonitor-5-channel-power-dist >>>> ribution-unit/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------ Original Message ------ >>>> From: "Kurt Fankhauser" <[email protected]> >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Sent: 7/3/2017 9:09:44 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board >>>> revisions? >>>> >>>> >>>> George, >>>> >>>> What is a packetflux 5ch PDU? I can't find anything on their site >>>> except 4 and 8 port injectors. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 9:22 PM, George Skorup < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I have some PacketFlux 5Ch PDUs. I've found the current measurements >>>>> to be fairly accurate. One has an AF24 on it and measures 1020mA, so 49 >>>>> watts. Others with Exalt ExtendAir G2-11's measuring 490-520mA, so 24-25 >>>>> watts. And a pair of SAF Lumina 6GHz HP radios both about 825mA = 39.6 >>>>> watts while the radios themselves say about 870mA and 40.4 watts, so.. >>>>> close enough. All of these are fed from the regulated output Traco >>>>> BCMU360's in 48V mode. I love the 5Ch PDUs + GigE-POE-APCs for +48 >>>>> backhauls. No fuses to worry about. And slightly higher power than a >>>>> typical POE injector will handle. >>>>> >>>>> On 6/30/2017 5:36 PM, Mathew Howard wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Well, I've always measured them from the DC side, so I could see them >>>>> going drawing that much from the wall. >>>>> >>>>> Kind of interesting, I was just checking some of ours... I have one >>>>> site, where there are two AF-5x plugged being powered from a MikroTik hEX >>>>> PoE, so they both have the exact same power source, similar cable lengths, >>>>> etc. and one is showing 8.1 watts and the other is 10.5 watts. The >>>>> interesting thing, is that the one that's drawing more power actually has >>>>> less load going through it, and judging from the MAC address, is also >>>>> slightly newer. I don't know how accurate those MikroTiks are at measuring >>>>> current (wouldn't surprise me if they're far from accurate), but I would >>>>> expect them to at least be kinda consistent. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Eric Kuhnke <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I really thought I remembered seeing an AF5X about eighteen months >>>>>> ago, drawing 16-17W from the wall, but I could be wrong or the watt meter >>>>>> that it was plugged into was grossly inaccurate. This newer model of >>>>>> kill-a-watt seems to be better. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Mathew Howard <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yeah, I think that's pretty consistent with what the AF-5X radios >>>>>>> have always used. The AF5 (not X) and AF24 do use a lot more power. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Stefan Englhardt <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes. All my AF5X use ~10W. UBNT AC use 6W and older MT 11n use >>>>>>>> 3-4W. SAF is 30-35. PTP600 is 50. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:04:44 +0000 >>>>>>>> Rory Conaway <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think you are thinking of the AF24 which cranks 50W all the time. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rory >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:43 PM >>>>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>>> Subject: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board >>>>>>>>> revisions? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Provisioning a new AF5X link here on their AC PoE injectors before >>>>>>>>> they go out to the field. Something interesting I've noticed, and >>>>>>>>> maybe I'm >>>>>>>>> not remembering right, but it seems that the newer AF5X use less >>>>>>>>> power than >>>>>>>>> the older ones. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This unit with its ubnt default PoE injector plugged into a >>>>>>>>> kill-a-watt is measuring 11 watts. There's no traffic going through >>>>>>>>> it, but >>>>>>>>> as I recall an AF5X uses pretty much the same amount whether or not >>>>>>>>> it's >>>>>>>>> under load, since the AF architecture is constantly sending/receiving >>>>>>>>> frames whether or not they have an ethernet data payload. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ----- GENIAS INTERNET -- www.genias.net ------ >>>>>>>> Genias Internet >>>>>>>> Stefan Englhardt Email: [email protected] >>>>>>>> Dr. Gesslerstr. 20 D-93051 Regensburg >>>>>>>> Tel: +49 941 942798-0 Fax: +49 941 942798-9 >>>>>>>> <%2B49%20941%20942798-9> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >
